Among the major threats to global biodiversity, alongside the climate crisis, habitat loss, overexploitation and pollution, is the spread of invasive species. So, what if I told you that one of the world’s worst invasive species is – far from being controlled – being deliberately maintained by people, including by your neighbours here in the UK? I’m talking about the domestic cat.
Descended from the Afro-Asiatic wildcat, the domestic cat wreaks havoc on wildlife, mainly via predation. Because they are provisioned with food, shelter, and veterinary care, 11 million pet cats in the UK inhabit urban environments at artificially high densities and whilst on an individual basis their instinctive predatory behaviour isn’t unnatural, collectively they exert a disproportionate danger to local wildlife. It’s estimated that pet cats kill several hundred million animals a year in the UK, and for ground feeding passerine birds and some rodents, this is likely detrimental to populations.
The damage that they do
Cat ownership also exerts other indirect environmental damage. Commercial cat foods are usually based on meat, fish and soya. A recent study estimated that land-based animal products in the food of pet dogs and cats in the US contribute 25-30 per cent of the environmental impacts of animal products in human diets, and account for 64m tonnes per year of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions. This is without including the fish that goes into pet foods, just as the fishing industry is obliterating marine ecosystems globally.
Then there is the issue of animal welfare abuse associated with the meat industry and the offcuts that we then serve up to our precious dogs and cats. With growing numbers of people making dietary shifts away from animal products partly in recognition of these issues, is it defensible for these unsustainable industries to be feeding our pets?
Another downside is the regular prophylactic treatments with chemical insecticides that most cats and dogs are given, usually marketed as flea treatments. These toxins are not targeted to pet parasites – they’re harmful to most invertebrates. The active ingredient in many of these treatments is imidacloprid – one of the neonicotinoids banned from use on flowering crops by the EU in 2018 due to their effects on bees.
Unfortunately, vets seem to be abusing their position of trust and authority to push product for the pharmaceutical giants, with pet owners advised to administer a monthly dose of noxious neurotoxin – regardless of whether their cat or dog even has parasites. This is then spread around the local environment or washed off the pet during baths, contaminating watercourses via wastewater treatment facilities.
If you use such products on your pet, then where your local invertebrates are concerned it’s a walking chemical weapon. This issue is just beginning to receive attention from researchers, but with 22m cats and dogs in the UK its impact could be considerable.
Not to speak of the threat to biodiversity
And if all this is not enough to unsettle you, we need also to consider the impacts of our beloved moggies on Britain’s rarest mammal, the ‘Scottish’ wildcat. It has long been afflicted by habitat destruction and persecution and was only saved from total extinction by the conscription of gamekeepers during the First World War, clinging on in small numbers in northwest Scotland. Protected now, the main threat comes from hybridisation with feral domestic cats which are descended from lost, abandoned or otherwise non-neutered pets.
Determining the remaining number of pure wildcats in Britain is difficult but some estimates goes as low as 35 individuals. The future of the species in Britain rests on reintroductions of captive-bred populations in the Cairngorms National Park and hopefully southwest England.
So what shall we do?
In summary, when Britain refers to itself as a nation of animal lovers, it masks the uncomfortable truth: our pampered pets incur a litany of damage. One way to mitigate this problem could be some form of cat ownership levy. We already tax activities because of their social or environmental harms, think alcohol and cigarettes. There are calls to bring back some form of dog licence, something that was required in the UK until 1988. Revenues generated could be ringfenced for investment in improving the accessibility, connectivity and biodiversity value of urban green spaces.
Several other regulations could be applied to cat ownership. In 2020, the government of New South Wales in Australia (where cats are a particular menace) introduced annual permits for non-neutered cats, costing owners A$80 to renew. The aim is to reduce the impact of feral cats on wildlife, and reduce the pressure on cat shelters from unwanted and abandoned cats. It would probably be simpler for the UK to make desexing a legal requirement after the 4 months of age recommended by the British Veterinary Association.
Individual cat owners should also be advised to stop using pesticide flea treatments when the pet doesn’t need them, and to fit collar-mounted anti-predation devices on their cats when they go outside, which make them more conspicuous to wildlife or physically impede pouncing behaviour. Keeping cats contained at home may seem counterintuitive to owners in the UK where they usually roam free during the day, but that alone would almost eliminate their predatory impacts and is likely better for their welfare too, as they wouldn’t be exposed to the risks of vehicle collisions, disease or attacks from the neighbourhood foxes.
In the long-term, I’d like to see decreases in the ownership of dogs and cats, which may be partly incentivised by the measures proposed above. If we curb our affinity for these pets and the environmental damage that comes with them, we could come much closer to being that nation of animal lovers.
If you have any comments on this article, we would love to hear from you on editor@sussexbylines.co.uk
